[Top] [All Lists]

RFC-MNEM & RFC-XXXX compatibiity

1991-07-04 11:14:46
I have some questions about RFC-MNEM and concerns about the wording in
RFC-MNEM relating to compatibility/agreement with the contents of

1) RFC-MNEM should be revised to explicitly state that mail messages
   using RFC-MNEM must also be fully compliant with RFC-XXXX.  To do
   otherwise might cause RFC-MNEM messages to be sent that are not
   RFC-XXXX compliant and that could cause interoperability requirements.

2) I'd really like to see RFC-CHAR to review it for other interoperability
   issues.  It is an essential part of the RFC-MNEM procedure since
   it details the encoding.  

   If Keld doesn't feel it is worth mailing, maybe it could be made 
   available for anonymous ftp with the file name and host published 
   on a note to the ietf-822 list.

3) I'm concerned about the "charset" item on page 3 of the RFC-MNEM draft,
   it isn't clear but it might be read as encouraging the use of character
   set encodings that aren't part of RFC-XXXX in some cases.  I hope that
   this isn't the intention and it is just a wording problem.  

4) I would also like to see the text reference to "ASCII" changed to 
   "US ASCII" with a reference to RFC-XXXX added and a reference to 
   ANSI X3.64 added.  Someplaces people use "ASCII" when they really 
   mean ISO 646 or a ISO 646 variant and it is important for the RFC
   to be unambiguous.

5) How should the Content-Type: header be changed when transformation 
   occurs ?  This isn't clear to me.  A detailed example of before and
   after transformation would help me.

6) Is "communication character set" the character set used during 
   transport using SMTP or is it the sender's character set encoding
   or the receiver's character set encoding ?

7) The example header refers to "ISO_8859-1" while RFC-XXXX uses 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>